Well, that’s one way to win a cable news punditry argument. CNN is reporting that longtime Fox News host Sean Hannity pulled a gun on his colleague Juan Williams after the two had finished an on-air political argument, with Hannity even going so far as to turn on the laser targeting system and putting the red dot right on Williams, horrifying those on the set. Moreover, Hannity is now admitting the incident happened but is trying to downplay it.

The gun incident happened last year, and it was seen as so troublesome that it was escalated all the way to a Fox News co-president before subsequently being buried. At this point Fox, Hannity, and Williams are all trying to claim that Hannity was merely showing off how the gun worked after they’d had an on-air political argument about guns. They’re also all claiming the gun wasn’t loaded at the time. But it raises the question of why the hell Sean Hannity was carrying a gun while he was on the set of Fox News.

Hannity is trying to explain it away by stating that he has a conceal carry permit in some states. But in so doing, he’s admitting that he is (or was) doing a television show on the set of Fox News with a gun on him, and was presumably walking the halls of his workplace with a gun. It was CNN who broke this story today, after three sources inside Fox News brought the story to CNN. It’s unclear why the Fox News sources are coming forward now. But again, Fox and Hannity are now admitting that the gun incident happened; the above CNN link includes their statements.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles.
Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures.
A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.

excerpt:
Patterson also recalled Mercer arguing that, during the Gulf War, the U.S. should simply have taken Iraq’s oil, “since it was there.” Trump, too, has said that the U.S. should have “kept the oil.” Expropriating another country’s natural resources is a violation of international law. Another onetime senior employee at Renaissance recalls hearing Mercer downplay the dangers posed by nuclear war. Mercer, speaking of the atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, argued that, outside of the immediate blast zones, the radiation actually made Japanese citizens healthier. The National Academy of Sciences has found no evidence to support this notion. Nevertheless, according to the onetime employee, Mercer, who is a proponent of nuclear power, “was very excited about the idea, and felt that it meant nuclear accidents weren’t such a big deal.”

Mercer strongly supported the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Trump’s Attorney General. Many civil-rights groups opposed the nomination, pointing out that Sessions has in the past expressed racist views. Mercer, for his part, has argued that the Civil Rights Act, in 1964, was a major mistake. According to the onetime Renaissance employee, Mercer has asserted repeatedly that African-Americans were better off economically before the civil-rights movement. (Few scholars agree.) He has also said that the problem of racism in America is exaggerated. The source said that, not long ago, he heard Mercer proclaim that there are no white racists in America today, only black racists. (Mercer, meanwhile, has supported a super pac, Black Americans for a Better Future, whose goal is to “get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party.”)

INDIANAPOLIS — The day should have been one of glory and celebration for five fourth-graders.

The Pleasant Run Elementary students had just won a robotics challenge at Plainfield High School, and the students — new to bot competition this year — were one step closer to the Vex IQ State Championship.

Then racism got in the way.

For the record, their race or ethnicity shouldn’t be a part of this story. But it is.

The team is made up of 9- and 10-year-olds. Two are African American and three are Latino.

As the group, called the Pleasant Run PantherBots, and their parents left the challenge last month in Plainfield, Ind., competing students from other Indianapolis-area schools and their parents were waiting for them in the parking lot.

“Go back to Mexico!” two or three kids screamed at their brown-skin peers and their parents.

This verbal attack had spilled over from the gymnasium. While the children were competing, one or two parents disparaged the Pleasant Run kids with racist comments — and loud enough for the Pleasant Run families to hear.

“They were pointing at us and saying that ‘Oh my God, they are champions of the city all because they are Mexican. They are Mexican, and they are ruining our country,’ ” Diocelina Herrera, the mother of PantherBot Angel Herrera-Sanchez, heard a woman say.

If you allow racism and hate to dictate these things, minority students from the east side of the city, poor kids from a Title I school, aren’t supposed to be smart. They aren’t supposed to be talented. They aren’t supposed to be technologically savvy.

And they definitely aren’t supposed to be able to best white students from surrounding communities.

“For the most part, the robotics world is kind of a white world,” said Lisa Hopper, the team’s coach and a Pleasant Run second-grade teacher. “They’re just not used to seeing a team like our kids.
“And they see us and they think we’re not going to be competition. Then we’re in first place the whole day, and they can’t take it,” she said.

Instead, Trump’s first presidential budget released Thursday calls for “maintaining” $492 million in appropriations for HBCUs and minority-serving institutions. Combined discretionary spending for those schools, however, is actually $577 million right now. The White House directed questions about the discrepancy to the Education Department, which did not respond to requests for comment.

There is no mention in the budget of any federal investment in scholarships, technology or campus infrastructure for historically black colleges that leaders requested. And instead of expanding Pell grants for low-income students to cover summer courses as they had asked, the budget raids nearly $4 billion from the program’s reserves.

“Less than three weeks ago, this administration claimed it is a priority to advocate for HBCUs but, after viewing this budget proposal, those calls ring hollow,” Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), a graduate of the largest HBCU, North Carolina A&T State University, said in a statement

One of the ways Republicans have traditionally tried to get rid of federal programs that enjoy broad support from the American public is to suggest that they should be block granted to the states in order to allow them to have discretion over meeting their own constituent’s needs. Right now they are busy making those arguments in an attempt to block grant Medicaid.

In many cases block granting allows Republicans to reduce funds and then force states to make the hard choices about who gets hurt – letting them escape accountability while claiming that the outcomes demonstrate that the programs don’t work. It’s a pretty neat trick if the public let’s you pull it off.

You might have heard that yesterday Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney suggested that the Meals on Wheels program doesn’t work. While I don’t mind that this administration is taking some flack for being heartless with their budget cuts, that isn’t necessarily the case he made.

“Isn’t feeding seniors in and of itself the fulfillment of the program’s goal?” Director Mulvaney was asked about cuts to Meals on Wheels pic.twitter.com/sKnq3wHsN2

About a year ago, Donald Trump made one of the more outlandish claims of his candidacy: he said he would eliminate the national debt in eight years.

Specifically, Trump told the Washington Post that he wants to see the United States “get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Pressed for details, the GOP candidate said he “could do it fairly quickly,” eliminating the debt “over a period of eight years.”

This was, as we discussed at the time, nuts. He was effectively promising to deliver multi-trillion-dollar surpluses every year for eight years, which no one considers even remotely possible.

A year later, the White House doesn’t even pretend to care about those priorities. Politico noted yesterday:

While steep cuts to departments like the EPA are expected under a Republican president, Trump’s plan leaves out the key conservative priority of deficit reduction. […]

[OMB Director Mick Mulvaney], once among Congress’ toughest deficit hawks, also acknowledged the White House budget leaves the nation’s $488 billion federal deficit untouched. The decision ignores what has become the fiscal gold standard within the GOP: a budget that balances within 10 years.

Mulvaney, the president’s budget director, specifically told reporters yesterday, “[J]ust to clarify, it’s not a balanced budget. There will still be roughly a $488 billion deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, next year.”

Voters in urban areas discover what they ‘have to lose’ under Trump
03/17/17 11:20 AM
By Steve Benen
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson was in Detroit yesterday, visiting one of the cabinet agency’s field offices, and visiting a local restaurant funded by the Motor City Match program, which as CNBC reported, “pairs businesses in Detroit with available real estate options” and “helps businesses locate and thrive in Detroit by providing competitive grants, loans and counseling to building owners and business owners.”

Carson pointed to the program as “a wonderful example of community revitalization at work.”

And while that may be true, Motor City Match receives federal funding through HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program. As CNBC’s report added, under Donald Trump’s budget, the Community Development Block Grant program would be eliminated entirely.

In other words, this “wonderful example of community revitalization at work” probably would not exist if Carson’s boss had his way.

NBC News’ Jane C. Timm did a great job yesterday noting just how far the Trump White House intends to go targeting programs like these intended to benefit urban communities.

Released Thursday, the budget calls for $6.2 billion of cuts to the nation’s Housing and Urban Development agency, putting the already strapped federal housing authority under even bigger strain. […]

To slash an additional 1.1 billion from the HUD budget, Trump’s proposal eliminates the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the Choice Neighborhoods program, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity program, SHOP. The administration calls these “lower priority programs.”

The Republican health care plan is noticeably short on allies. Not long after the GOP’s American Health Care Act was unveiled, it was denounced by the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Hospital Association, AARP, the American Cancer Society, the American Psychiatric Association, a wide variety of governors, and consumer advocates.

With this in mind, the White House was understandably delighted last week when Anthem, one of the nation’s largest private health insurers, expressed vague support for key elements of the bill, saying the Republican plan “addresses the challenges immediately facing the individual market.”

……………………………………………………………………

The New York Times’ David Leonhardt shed some useful light on a possible answer to that question.

It turns out that one of the bill’s few high-profile fans may not even support it on the merits. Instead, Anthem appears to be providing political cover to the administration at the same time that company officials are lobbying the administration for a favorable decision on another matter. It’s pretty brazen.

Here are the details: Anthem, which is based in Indiana, is already the largest insurer in California, Kentucky, Virginia and elsewhere. Two years ago, its chief executive, Joseph Swedish, made a big bet. He decided to put public pressure on Cigna, another major insurer, to accept a merger. Eventually, Swedish succeeded, and Anthem agreed to pay $48 billion to buy its rival.

But the Obama administration’s Justice Department filed suit against the merger, arguing that it would force consumers to pay higher prices. Last month, a federal judge agreed and blocked the merger. Cigna isn’t happy with the deal anymore either and has filed a $14 billion lawsuit against Anthem. None of it makes Swedish look good.

Beleaguered Secretary of State raises stakes with North Korean warning
03/17/17 10:18 AM
By Steve Benen
All is not well at the State Department, which in the Donald Trump era, has found itself marginalized and ignored. This week, the White House announced plans to slash the State Department’s budget – a move that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson inexplicably embraced, further demoralizing the department.

As Rachel noted on the show last night, Tillerson told reporters yesterday that the administration believes it can afford to dramatically cut the State Department’s funding because “there will be fewer military conflicts that the U.S. will be directly engaged in.”

It’s an odd response. For one thing, investing in diplomacy helps reduce the chances of military engagement. For another, the Trump administration is pushing for vastly larger spending at the Pentagon, apparently in anticipation of new military operations.

Part of Meals on Wheels, outside of the food, is the consistent WELL BEING CHECK.
The Senior has to put someone down with their application. If they don’t get to the person, the family/friend member on their application is notified…..which, if something has happened, alerts that person.

These people are phucking evil. …
” can’t see any results from Meals on Wheels.”

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 3/16/17Trump’s proposed State Department budget cuts put US at risk
Wendy Sherman, former undersecretary of State, talks with Rachel Maddow about Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the State Department’s budget by a third, and the implications that will have on fighting terrorism and epidemics like Ebola.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 3/16/17Flynn scandal intensifies amid documented payments from Russia
Rachel Maddow raises the question of whether Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn committed a crime by accepting payments from Russia, and whether the Trump campaign knew about it before hiring him.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 3/16/17Russian hackers targeted down-ballot races
Glen Caplin, senior national spokesman for the Hillary Clinton campaign, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the Russian hack of the Democratic Party unfolded.

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In the coming weeks, the judge will be questioned about his views on a range of social and political issues—abortion, gun control, and voting rights among them. Senate Democrats should add another issue to the top of the list: antitrust law.

Federal antitrust law controls monopolies, cartels, and mergers. It restricts what companies, in particular large companies, can do—for example, buying their rivals, fixing prices, or engaging in below-cost pricing to drive competitors out of the market.

It used to, anyway. Historically, the goal of antitrust law was to preserve competitive markets. Starting in the 1970s, however, judges influenced by the Chicago School of law and economics began limiting the scope of the federal antitrust statutes by redefining the objective of these laws. The only proper goal of antitrust law, according to this perspective, was to promote “efficiency” and “consumer welfare.” In other words, as long as they kept prices low in the short term, mergers and monopolies were fine. Further, this school of thought assumed that mergers and monopolies could realize “economies of scale” and thereby lower prices to consumers. Under this theoretical framework, mergers and monopolies are generally a good thing. As president, Ronald Reagan appointed Supreme Court justices and federal antitrust officials who advanced and institutionalized this narrow antitrust ideology, leading to multiple merger waves over the past four decades and the staggering level of market concentration in America today.

…………………………………………………………

Gorsuch’s antitrust philosophy is exemplified in his opinion in another case, Novell v. Microsoft. Novell sued Microsoft, alleging that the software giant broke a promise to share the technology necessary for Novell to produce a word processing program compatible with Windows 95. Novell claimed Microsoft did so in order to favor its own software, Microsoft Word.

Not only did Gorsuch rule against Novell, but he went on to impose a near-impossible burden on antitrust plaintiffs. He held that Microsoft could not be found liable unless it was proved to have sacrificed short-term profits in its exclusionary campaign against Novell. That decision created a remarkably lenient standard that essentially allows monopolists to use their power to marginalize competitors so long as they can show they made money in the process.

At a time when the public has serious and growing concerns about the power of platform monopolists such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, Gorsuch’s decision in Novell gives these titans broad power to squelch rivals and to extend their existing monopolies into adjacent markets. In his opinions, Gorsuch goes further than most of his judicial peers in his deference to monopoly and disregard for Congress’s original goals.

Another issue that the Senate should investigate further is Gorsuch’s position on the so-called state action doctrine, which protects states and private parties acting subject to state authorization and supervision, from lawsuits alleging anticompetitive behavior. For instance, a state optometry association that is authorized by law to establish credentialing requirements for optometrists, and supervised by state regulators, would likely be immune from antitrust attack.

Gorsuch has only issued one opinion on the state-action doctrine, and in that case, he reached the right result. The Senate should find out, however, whether he intends to limit the doctrine, which could allow antitrust law to be used to target occupational licensing rules that protect consumers and promote higher wages and stable employment for workers. There is precedent for just such a legal strategy. At the turn of the 20th century, the judiciary limited the use of the antitrust laws against monopoly and mergers, while permitting these laws to be used against workers and farmers organizing for fairer wages and prices and safer working conditions. In response, Congress in 1914 passed the Clayton Antitrust Act and established the Federal Trade Commission to give the federal government the power to check concentrated private power and preserve competitive markets.

Last week, I asked what the Democrats should demand in return for providing some votes for raising the debt ceiling. I brought it up because it appears that there are enough Republicans who aren’t inclined to vote for the hike themselves that congressional Republican leadership is going to have to go hat-in-hand to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and request some assistance.

Several fiscal hawks said they wouldn’t support raising the debt ceiling without measures to reduce spending and the debt. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said he’d support a hike only “if there is a real path to balance … but we have typically not shown the intestinal fortitude to do just that.”

Meadows’ Freedom Caucus colleague Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) called the “debt ceiling is a leverage point in forcing conversation about where do we go from here” and said he wouldn’t vote for an increase without cuts.

“If our prescription is simply to keep on doing what we’ve been doing, I think that we’re going to see one heck of a financial storm coming,” Meadows said.

IDAHO CITY, Idaho — In 1864, the tiny town of Idaho City was the biggest American settlement in the state. Now, with the gold rush long over, the logging industry nearly collapsed and few good jobs left in the area, the local K-12 school graduates fewer than 35 students a year.

Nevertheless, since 1999, every 4-year-old in town has been offered an option most 4-year-olds in Idaho don’t get: a spot in a free, public preschool program.

“Preschool can be a great resource in rural communities,” said John McFarlane, the district superintendent who doubles as the seventh- through 12th-grade principal. “We can’t go to the museum; we can’t go to the Discovery Center. We don’t have licensed day care. We don’t want to assign [our kids] to a rural life for their whole life if they want something else.”

Too often we forget that long before this country was formed, the land that makes up the Southwest belonged to Mexico. As a result of the Mexican-American War in the 1840s, that territory was ceded to the United States. Between the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and a later addition in the Gadsden Purchase, the border between Mexico and the United States as it exists today was formed.

That history is critical to understanding why the challenges Trump will face in building a border wall only begin with the question of how to pay for it. Back in the 1840’s and 50’s, those agreements didn’t take into consideration the people who live on either/both side of those imaginary boundaries or the terrain they traverse. A good case in point is the Tohono O’ogham Nation. Their tribal lands exist on both sides of the border along a 75 mile stretch in Arizona.

When it comes to the idea of building a wall through their lands, Tohono O’ogham Nation leaders have said, “No.”

The Tohono O’odham Nation Legislative Council has passed over twenty resolutions opposing a border wall, most recently reaffirming that the Nation “opposes the construction of a physical wall on its southern boundary” (Feb. 7, 2017). The resolution lays out the many cultural, environmental, and historical reasons for opposing a wall.

Gerald S. Dickinson explains why that is a huge problem for Trump.

Tribes have certain property rights under the Constitution and federal statutes. Many of their lands are held in trusts, which federal law recognizes as independent political entities. Trump would need a bill from Congress to acquire the tribal lands, which are protected by treaties and other statutory equivalents.

When Mick Mulvaney was a member of Congress, the South Carolina Republican, a founding member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, developed a reputation for almost comical radicalism. Now he’s Donald Trump’s budget director, where he’s proving his critics right.

Just this week, Mulvaney said he believed that the Obama administration “was manipulating the numbers” on unemployment, which is bonkers. Soon after, the OMB chief was caught brazenly lying – twice – about basic details surrounding the health care debate.

Yesterday, Mulvaney extremism came into even sharper focus.

Before the Thursday’s press briefing got fully underway, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney defended cuts to community programs, like Meals on Wheels, which provides meals to homebound, often elderly, individuals.

“We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good and great,” Mulvaney said. “Meals on Wheels sounds great. Again that’s a state decision to fund that particular portion to it. To take the federal money and give it to the states and say look we want to give you money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”

Trump’s budget director added that cutting assistance to struggling seniors is “one of the most compassionate things we can do,” telling skeptical reporters, “You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place.” He pointed to programs such as Meals on Wheels as initiatives that are “just not showing any results.”

The point of Meals on Wheels is provide food to the low-income elderly. I’m honestly not sure what kind of “results” Mulvaney is looking for – if the struggling seniors eat the food, and the evidence suggests the meals have a positive impact on their well-being, then the return on Americans’ investment is high.

This really was just the start of a jaw-dropping presentation. During the same briefing:

* Mulvaney said there’s no “demonstrable evidence” that after-school programs help at-risk children, despite the demonstrable evidence that points in the opposite direction.

* Asked about paying for Trump’s border wall, the White House budget chief said, “It’s up to somebody else to figure out where the money comes from.”

* When the discussion turned to climate change, Mulvaney declared, “We’re not spending money on that anymore; we consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”

* One reporter reminded the OMB director, “The United Nations said the world is currently facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the end of World War II – 20 million people in just four countries facing starvation or famine – and yet you’re cutting funding to the U.N., cutting funding to the foreign aid budget. Are you worried that some of the most vulnerable people on Earth will suffer as a result?” Mulvaney responded that the Trump administration is “absolutely” cutting those funds, adding, “That should come as a surprise to no one who watched the campaign.”

The New York Times’ David Brooks suggested today he’s a little surprised by Donald Trump’s White House agenda. “The Trump health care and budget plans will be harsh on the poor, which we expected,” the center-right columnist wrote. “But they’ll also be harsh on the working class, which we didn’t.”

Let’s not be too cavalier about using the word “we.” Some of us predicted precisely what we’re seeing from the Republican president.

……………………………….

For those who took Trump’s rhetoric at face value, and believed that he sincerely intended to be a populist champion of working people, I imagine the reality of the president’s agenda must be quite jarring. The “forgotten men and women” of the United States – the struggling people who have not “shared” in the nation’s wealth – would be punished severely by this White House agenda.

The Washington Post reported yesterday:

Trump has unveiled a budget that would slash or abolish programs that have provided low-income Americans with help on virtually all fronts, including affordable housing, banking, weatherizing homes, job training, paying home heating oil bills, and obtaining legal counsel in civil matters. […]

The White House budget cuts will fall hardest on the rural and small town communities that Trump won, where 1 in 3 people are living paycheck to paycheck – a rate that is 24 percent higher than in urban counties, according to a new analysis by the center.

…………………

Those who believed the president when he said, “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer” may have missed the fine print: under Trump, you’re on your own.

Trump may have blurted out classified information
03/16/17 12:54 PM—UPDATED 03/16/17 01:17 PM
By Steve Benen
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson asked Donald Trump last night about his wiretap conspiracy theory, which his Republican allies are quickly running away from, and the host specifically pressed the president on a specific point: “Every intelligence agency reports to you. Why not immediately go to them and gather evidence to support that?”

Trump responded, “Because I don’t want to do anything that’s going to violate any strength of an agency. We have enough problems.”

I honestly haven’t the foggiest idea what this was supposed to mean. The president, for whatever reason, came to believe he was the target of illegal surveillance, and he could’ve asked officials in his administration to provide him with information about his concerns. He didn’t, however, because it would’ve “violated” the “strength” of an intelligence agency? Since when do factual questions from a president to intelligence professionals undermine government agencies?

Trump quickly added:

“And by the way, with the CIA, I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked, and a lot of things taken – that was during the Obama years. That was not during us. That was during the Obama situation.”

…………………………

At the time, however, the agency wouldn’t even confirm the authenticity of the materials, and a CIA spokesperson told reporters, “We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents.”

All of which suggests Trump, responding to a question he was not asked, may have blurted out something important on national television. Indeed, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, noted in a statement, “In his effort to once again blame Obama, the president appears to have discussed something that, if true and accurate, would otherwise be considered classified information.”

Black Girls Rock!

Flickr Photos

Potus Takes Oath of Office

Flotus & Daughters at Great Wall of China

My Brothers Keeper

AFRO PUFFS

Most Adorable Shoe Stealer

Six Little Babies

Fatherhood

Even though 3Chics Politico is written and curated by three women: Ametia, Rikyrah, and SouthernGirl2, I must nominate this as one of the most engaging blogs I've found. Devoted to politics and culture, these three shine a light on contemporary life with humor and spirit.